Kevin described in detail the plight of people living with disability in the UK and elsewhere where supports are limited and sometimes even cruelly withdrawn leaving people with little or no choice and where suicide would seem the only option available.

In my last post we looked at the confusion that is unnecessarily clouding the debate over the Tasmanian euthanasia bill. Nick McKim MP failed to note the necessary distinctions between an action with the direct intention to kill and an action with the intention to relieve pain and suffering.

Last evening (24th November) the South Australian Parliament’s upper house debated the latest euthanasia bill from Greens MLC, Mark Parnell.

At the State Election in March of this year changes in personnel in the upper house appeared to have turned that chamber decidedly pro-euthanasia. However, last night common sense prevailed yet again as the bill was defeated at the second reading ‘on the voices’.

Dr Tom Mortier's mother was killed by Belgium's leading euthanasia doctor in 2012. Now he, and Dr Georges Casteur, have lodged an official complaint against this doctor with Belgian medical authorities.

The resolution is comprised of a list of principles already elaborated in three documents previously adopted in the Council of Europe, including the Convention on Human Rights and Biomedicine (Oviedo Convention), which legally binds the majority of member States.

Euthanasia laws permit killing on the basis of perceived physical suffering, whereas for people with disabilities, the real anguish arises in a large part due to a mix of social, financial and emotional factors.

Recently Conservative MP, Steven Fletcher introduced two euthanasia-type bills into the Canadian National Parliament. As Wesley Smith points out, they have no chance of success. However, the terminology within the bills tells a shocking story: